* I think this Australian idea of paying Cambodia to take boat people a superb idea. Win-win.
If the boaters are that desperate they should be happy, Cambodia makes money. Would be migrants get sent a terrific message.
This is absolutely what Europe should do. Push them back into holding area in North Africa. It would be expensive but less than the total future costs of taking them in. Of course it has to be done with panache.
Bribery is an under appreciated force for good in world affairs; carefully done. If the price is right some country would act as a holding cum education centre south of the US border. What about paying Mexico to send them there before they reach the border? Combine this with a watered down Marshall program for propaganda affect.
(Of course everywhere in the West are Open Borders crowds that jam sensible solutions but who don’t seem to have as much traction in Oz.)
* France has a good idea to keep refugees away, over whelming bureaucracy staffed by indifferent workers so & stingy benefits. Of course with a socialist in charge that might quickly change.
One thing of note in the article is how social media guides the decisions of migrants. When a country gains a rep of being generous word gets out quickly.
* John O’Sullivan says the new guy in Australia wouldn’t have solved the boat problem if he’d been in instead of Abbott; but he probably won’t go out of his way to actively break what his predecessor fixed.
On the other hand, a lot of things require not just maintenance to keep going but high level enthusiasm.
* Here’s a suggestion which could help solve both the immigration problem and the budget deficit. Currently many if not most of our welfare programs are treated as entitlements. That means that if the number of food stamp recipients double, then so does the amount the government spends on food stamps. Welfare programs are treated like a supposedly bottomless pit of money.
Instead, we should budget a specific amount of money for welfare benefits. If the number of people who qualify for a program goes up, then the value of the benefit for each family or individual goes down. That will incentivize poor voters to want to keep large numbers of other poor people from entering the country.
Another option would be to create a separate income tax for welfare (and perhaps for every government department). Have it apply to every last penny of income, including capital gains, with no deductions. When the number of people using welfare goes up, so do everyone’s taxes. When the value of welfare benefits go up, so do everyone’s taxes.
Our current income tax system is far too opaque, and effectively hides the cost of individual government programs from the taxpayers.
* Send ‘me all to Liberia and Sierra Leone. That’s what those places are for.
